Posted by jkm822 at 208.140.189.12 on August 02, 2001 at 12:06:27:
that statement is. About bad publicity, I mean. The MAJOR example that comes to mind is OJ Simpson; I don't think HE'D agree that there's no such thing as bad publicity. And NO, I'm not trying to get into an OJ Simpson debate, I'm just using him as an example.
I don't know Drudge, so I can't say how I feel about publicity from them. It's good that Kevin's side of the argument is getting out there, but then, I don't know that the argument needs to be out there at all. Noone commented on all the gay jokes Kevin's put in all the other films; why attack this one? Because it's there, and nothing else that's out this summer is particularly inflammatory. Special interest groups always need to be fighting SOMEONE, otherwise people might forget that they're there! Can't have that!
I'm not saying that GLAAD is wrong. Or right, for that matter. I'm just saying that this is a comedy about two stoners going cross-country because they're not getting a piece of the action on a movie. It's so non-threatening as to be laughable, which, being a comedy, is exactly what it's supposed to be. Why does it have to create this kind of horrible debate, where people are BOUND to say stupid things that are only going to make it worse? That goes for BOTH sides of the fight. I really wasn't planning on fighting my way through a crowd of angry protesters to see this film, especially since a decent piece of my circle of friends are gay, lesbian, or bi. I really don't think any of them would be offended if they saw the movie, and I think that much like Dogma, once the movie is out this is all going to drop by the wayside due to irrelevancy. I really don't think this is the kind of movie that DESERVES this kind of controversy, do you? Can't we just go see it and laugh, or are we going to let ourselves get bogged down in *purse lips with distaste* ISSUES?
Jill